Barstow Irr. Co. v. Cleghon
| Decision Date | 17 February 1906 |
| Citation | 93 S.W. 1023 |
| Parties | BARSTOW IRR. CO. v. CLEGHON. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Ward County; James L. Shepherd, Judge.
Action by W. M. Cleghon against the Barstow Irrigation Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
The sixth paragraph of the charge referred to in the opinion is as follows:
J. E. Starley, for appellant. Jas. F. Ross and T. J. Hefner, for appellee.
This is an action instituted by W. M. Cleghon against Barstow Irrigation Company for damages for breach of a contract to supply water for irrigating certain farm lands for the year 1904. There was judgment for Cleghon, and the Irrigation Company has appealed.
It is first asserted that the trial court should have sustained appellant's plea in abatement and its first special exception to appellee's petition, based upon the proposition that appellee's tenants were necessary parties plaintiff in the action. There is no merit in this contention. Appellant's contract was one to furnish the appellee water for irrigating 440 acres of land. Appellee subsequently agreed with his tenants to furnish them water for the irrigation of lands to be cultivated by them for that year. There is no such privity of contract between these tenants and appellant as would authorize them to maintain an action against it for breach of its contract to supply appellee with water. Their action, if they have one, is against appellee, the only person with whom they are shown to have contracted for water. The confusion in appellant's mind has evidently arisen from the fact that appellee's damages in the case consist in the loss of crops in which his tenants are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Basden & Carrell
...Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 188 S. W. 680, 686-7; Dickinson Creamery Co. v. Lyle (Tex. Civ. App.) 130 S. W. 904, 906; Barstow Irr. Co. v. Cleghon (Tex. Civ. App.) 93 S. W. 1023, 1024. In all the cases above cited, it appears either expressly or with reasonable certainty that net profits only were ......
-
McGuire v. Post Falls Lumber & Manufacturing Co.
... ... 997, ... 17 L. R. A. 426; Lentz v. Carnegie, 145 Pa. 613, 27 ... Am. St. 717, 23 A. 219; Barstow Irr. Co. v. Cleghon (Tex ... Civ. App.), 93 S.W. 1023.) ... "It ... is only in ... ...
-
Berg v. Yakima Valley Canal Co.
... ... They are Knowles v. Leggett, 7 Colo. App. 265, 43 P ... 154; Barstow Irr. Co. v. Cleghon (Tex. Civ. App.) 93 ... S.W. 1023; First Nat. Bank v. Hastings, 7 Colo ... ...
-
Kincheloe Irrigating Co. v. Hahn Bros. & Co.
...Appellant failed to furnish the water, appellees were damaged, and appellant is responsible for the damages. The case of Barstow Irrigation Co. v. Cleghon, 93 S. W. 1023, cited by appellant as being directly in point and conclusive in this case, does not fit the facts herein proved. In that......